COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov. 22 - Leesa Martin never considered President Bush a great leader, but she voted for him a year ago because she admired how he handled the terrorist attacks of 2001.

Jessica McGowan for The New York Times
Selena Smith, an advertising agency director in Atlanta. "The war is more important to me now. What&#8217;s the plan? Give us something to hang our teeth on," she said.

Kevin Fitzsimons for The New York Times
"I don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s any one thing as much as it is everything. It&#8217;s kind of snowballed," said Leesa Martin, a market researcher in Columbus, Ohio.
Then came the past summer, when the death toll from the war in Iraq hit this state particularly hard: 16 marines from the same battalion killed in one week. She thought the federal government should have acted faster to help after Hurricane Katrina. She was baffled by the president's nomination of Harriet E. Miers, a woman she considered unqualified for the Supreme Court, and disappointed when he did not nominate another woman after Ms. Miers withdrew.

And she remains unsettled by questions about whether the White House leaked the name of a C.I.A. agent whose husband had accused the president of misleading the country about the intelligence that led to the war.

"I don't know if it's any one thing as much as it is everything," said Ms. Martin, 49, eating lunch at the North Market, on the edge of downtown Columbus. "It's kind of snowballed."

Her concerns were echoed in more than 75 interviews here and across the country this week, helping to explain the slide in the president's approval and trustworthiness ratings in recent polls.

Many people who voted for Mr. Bush a year ago had trouble pinning their current discontent on any one thing. Many mentioned the hurricane and the indictment of a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, which some said raised doubts about the president's candor and his judgment. But there was a sense that something had veered off course in the last few months, and the war was the one constant. Over and over, even some of Mr. Bush's supporters raised comparisons with Vietnam.

"We keep hearing about suicide bombers and casualties and never hear about any progress being made," said Dave Panici, 45, a railroad conductor from Bradley, Ill. "I don't see an end to it; it just seems relentless. I feel like our country is just staying afloat, just treading water instead of swimming toward somewhere."

Mr. Panici voted for President Bush in 2004, calling it "a vote for security." "Now that a year has passed, I haven't seen any improvement in Iraq," he said. "I don't feel that the world is a safer place."

A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll in mid-November found that 37 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush, the lowest approval rating the poll had recorded in his presidency. That was down from 55 percent a year ago and from a high of 90 percent shortly after Sept. 11, 2001.

An Associated Press/Ipsos poll earlier in the month found the same 37 percent approval rating and recorded the president's lowest levels regarding integrity and honesty: 42 percent of Americans found him honest, compared with 53 percent at the beginning of this year.

Several of those interviewed said that in the last year they had come to believe that Mr. Bush had not been fully honest about the intelligence that led to the war, which he said showed solid evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"I think people put their faith in Bush, hoping he would do the right thing," said Stacey Rosen, 38, a stay-at-home mother in Boca Raton, Fla., who said she voted for Mr. Bush but was "totally disappointed" in him now. "Everybody cannot believe that there hasn't been one shred of evidence of W.M.D. I think it goes to show how they tell us what they want to tell us."

Mark Briggs, who works for Nationwide Insurance here, said he did not want to believe that the president "manipulated" intelligence leading the country into war, but believed that, at least, Mr. Bush had misread it.

Still, however much he may disagree with Mr. Bush's policies, Mr. Briggs said, he admires the president for standing by what he says.

"There is the notion of leadership and sticking with the plan, which I believe in," he said. "George Bush is clear and consistent. He made a tough decision to go to war - and others voted for it, too. And I think he's right: those people may be trying to rewrite history."

Kacey Wilson, 32, eating lunch with Ms. Martin, said she, too, had concerns about the death toll from the war, but she felt that Mr. Bush spoke the truth, even if it might not be what the country wanted to hear. "I like his cut-and-dry, take-no-prisoners style," Ms. Wilson said. "I think people are used to more spinning."

Others, though, saw arrogance in that approach.

"We need to not be so stubborn," said Vicky Polka, 58, a retired school principal in Statesboro, Ga., who voted for Mr. Bush and described her support for him as "waning." "Something's not going right here. We need to resolve this. I hate to say it, but I think Iraq is going the way of Vietnam."

Few people said they were following the leak scandal, which led to the indictment of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Mr. Cheney's former aide. Some who could cite main characters and events dismissed it as little more than political theater. Even fewer said they had paid attention to other scandals preoccupying Washington: the indictment of Representative Tom DeLay, the powerful Texas Republican, and the guilty plea by his former spokesman.

But several people said that the leak scandal had left them with the sense that the president was not leveling with the public about his involvement.

Despite that entire article no one has yet to establish what exactly the President is supposedly doing so wrong.

I've seen no evidence that anything is going wrong. When that happens let me know. Till then, i suggest studying the history of warfare.

Click to expand...

Lemme make this simple for you, Avatar.

The United States Of America has made completely unfounded and unsubstantiated claims against a country that has posed no threat against us. Said country possesses tremendous oil resourses, practically no human resourses and has demonstrated a propensity for agreement to American objectives. Said country also demonstrates no desire for confrontation or inclination for disagreement in positive business objectives. Said country simply wants to be left to their own resourses and nothing more. The US insists on WAR. Did I leave anything out?

The United States Of America has made completely unfounded and unsubstantiated claims against a country that has posed no threat against us. Said country possesses tremendous oil resourses, practically no human resourses and has demonstrated a propensity for agreement to American objectives. Said country also demonstrates no desire for confrontation or inclination for disagreement in positive business objectives. Said country simply wants to be left to their own resourses and nothing more. The US insists on WAR. Did I leave anything out?

Psychoblues

Click to expand...

Yea you forgot the part where said country was known as Saddam Hussein land. It wasnt a country, it was a man. The iraqi people had no say in the affair. A country has potential towards freedom. A man, especially one who has shown no remorse for killing his own people, has the potential towards disaster.

Oh yea and the fact that all your claims are in fact unsubstantiated and unfounded. Provide some proof for a change and not the usually traitorous talking points of you and your leftist, dope smoking, communist asshole buddies.

The United States Of America has made completely unfounded and unsubstantiated claims against a country that has posed no threat against us. Said country possesses tremendous oil resourses, practically no human resourses and has demonstrated a propensity for agreement to American objectives. Said country also demonstrates no desire for confrontation or inclination for disagreement in positive business objectives. Said country simply wants to be left to their own resourses and nothing more. The US insists on WAR. Did I leave anything out?

Psychoblues

Click to expand...

Yeah. You left out any sort of factual basis for your ridiculous assertions.

You forgot the fact that intelligence community for the entire world found Saddam in breach and violation of international law for his weapons programs

You forgot the fact that the UN passed a gazillion resolutions against the rogue regime in prewar Iraq.

You forgot the fact that Saddam violated our ceasefire agreement with him by failing to verify his weapons disarmment

You forgot the fact that in a post 911 world we cant simply wait around while there are people trying to destroy our freedom and civilization

You forgot the fact that the only reason the Europeans had for not supporting the war is the fact that they were profitting off Saddam's oppression by violating the trade sanctions against them.

You forgot that Saddam has a history of supporting terrorists including Al Queda in the past.

You forgot that after 911 we said we would take out any regime that supports terrorism.

You forgot that it is established that Saddam had weapons programs and had plans to resume those programs the second the previously mentioned corrupt European and UN leaders would have dropped the sanctions.

You forgot that if the war was really all about oil, President Bush could have merely had the sanctions dropped and we could have purchased all the oil we wanted from Saddam. I have no doubt that he would have been willing to sell us oil for the money to build weapons he wants to use to destroy us. That way we could have saved lives in the short run, made that dictator rich and given him power to destroy major american cities. Yes thats a much better alternative to liberating Iraq and putting that douche on trial.

You forgot that when we are talking about nuclear weapons and WMDs, if we wait till the threat is imminent, then its too late. Let's think about this rationally. Lose a few lives taking out tryants now and preventing them from obtaining such weapons vs. wait till they strap a nuclear devise to some terrirost and set it off in New York or DC. Very tough choice here.

You forgot that the President has an obligation to protect the American people. Even those too stupid that they care more about regaining their political power than defending their lives.

You forgot alot of things Psycho. I could go on for another twenty minutes. But I have more important things then explain reality to you. I dont have 20 years to waste.

I believe if you go back and look at the arguement for removing Saddam, it was a pre-emptive strike.

Actually, President Bush said in addressing this issue in June, 2002: " if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. "

Click to expand...

The world changed on 9/11 regardless of wether you like it or not. We can no longer wait to be attacked and parry the thrust, eventually an attack will succceed, bringing massive loss of life. We have to remove threats before they become real. Saddam was in violation of a UN treaty which gave us plenty of reason to make him the first target. Saddam ran his mouth for years and we shut it up. I could care less about the WMD's and that crap, I thought we should have gone in years ago and removed the twerp.

You are correct. It was Saddam Hussein land. He's been incarcerated for several years now. He is now on trial. Given the intelligent choices, Americans should be out of there by now. But, we weren't met with rose gardens and love when we declared war in Iraq. We certainly had broad support,in Iraq, on the front end but now we are viewed as American Terrorists by 80% of the Iraqi nationals, not to mention the other BILLION or so Muslims that reside in countries that are in fear of American domination in their own affairs. What causes that impression?

I would suggest the American inclination towards protecting the oil reserves while practically ignoring all else might be some of it. Murderers like Saddam Hussein don't deserve much from me. And neither do other wealthy and powerful murderers like Chalabi or even George W. Bush. I get my kicks on the American values that I have been taught since birth, Truth, Justice and Responsibility.

Psychoblues

insein said:

Yea you forgot the part where said country was known as Saddam Hussein land. It wasnt a country, it was a man. The iraqi people had no say in the affair. A country has potential towards freedom. A man, especially one who has shown no remorse for killing his own people, has the potential towards disaster.

Oh yea and the fact that all your claims are in fact unsubstantiated and unfounded. Provide some proof for a change and not the usually traitorous talking points of you and your leftist, dope smoking, communist asshole buddies.

You are correct. It was Saddam Hussein land. He's been incarcerated for several years now. He is now on trial. Given the intelligent choices, Americans should be out of there by now. But, we weren't met with rose gardens and love when we declared war in Iraq. We certainly had broad support,in Iraq, on the front end but now we are viewed as American Terrorists by 80% of the Iraqi nationals, not to mention the other BILLION or so Muslims that reside in countries that are in fear of American domination in their own affairs. What causes that impression?

I would suggest the American inclination towards protecting the oil reserves while practically ignoring all else might be some of it. Murderers like Saddam Hussein don't deserve much from me. And neither do other wealthy and powerful murderers like Chalabi or even George W. Bush. I get my kicks on the American values that I have been taught since birth, Truth, Justice and Responsibility.

Psychoblues

Click to expand...

Germans hated us unequivocally for years and some still do to this day. Does that make it wrong to have removed Hitler? Europeans of the surrounding nations think that Americans are viewed as greedy, world dominating, imperialistic forces. Should we not have helped with the invasion of Europe to remove Adolf?

As for your "viewed as American Terrorists by 80% iraqi nationals," how bout you show some proof for achange instead of pulling shit out of your ass. I can make up numbers too. 100% of all aging hippy, liberal douche's support communism and are traitors to America.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!